An Emerging EU Superpower & the U.S Cold-War Clash

A
geopolitical power confrontation between an expanding
European Union and the USA is drawing to a head. Build-up to
the EU/U.S. Summit scheduled for June 25 has seen threats
fired across the Atlantic with ferocity more akin to foes
rather than friends. Is there more to this US-EU stoush than
the USA demanding compliance from a formerly subservient
diplo-partner? Are we seeing the emergence of a new world EU
superpower and the inauguration of a Cold War Clash, 21st
Century-style?

-------

Pictured: French
President Chirac and UN secretary general Kofi Annan -
While the United States would wish to present a co-operative
partnership between Europe and Washington, the reality is
cultural divisions and polarised self-interest. The EU and
the United Nations however have forged a closer and
compatible alliance.

Europe is
amassing a unified population set to dwarf the USA. With
over 500 million citizens an expanded European Union’s
economy will be almost equal to that of the USA’s. The EU is
expanding geographically too, drawing into the fold
economies rich in tradition, history and culture. This
burgeoning superpower, with all its diversity, already
dominates the United Nations, commands a diplomatic rival
position that challenges the United States of America’s
pursuit of total global dominance.

Yet the European Union
in reality is in its nascency. Politically, EU expansion
will forge together the power and determination of states
and institutions to speak with one voice. For the first time
in history, a Unified Europe will command wealth and power,
militarily too, that certainly will counter the
globalisation aspirations of the USA.

Militarily, Europe
is currently using NATO, already acknowledged by many
politicians and commentators on both sides of the Atlantic
as a tired and spent force, as a body in transition. From
NATO a European armed force will emerge, freed from its
trans-Atlantic component, this new EU armed force will be
charged to provide security and means to Europe’s
aspirations and provide peacekeeping roles in hotspots about
the world.

Already we see the EU considering placing a
peacekeeping force in the Middle East and representative
nations like Germany deploying troops in peacekeeping roles
to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Likewise on the Ivory
Coast and in Liberia the French have been effective in
rescue and moderated ease to violence enflaming that region
of Africa.

But the future holds much more for Europe.

It
is likely, from the United States of America’s point of
view, EU expansion will instigate the advent of an awesome
military force, the rise of an entity that US policy [the
National Security Strategy document] expressly forbids. The
U.S. therefore can be expected to counter the EU’s ability
to form an autonomous military force at every
juncture.

Most recently we have seen the USA throwing its
weight around Brussels, insisting Belgium abandon laws that
permit charges laid against foreign nationals for war crimes
and crimes against humanity, or face consequences.

The
EU/US Summit in Washington on June 25 will raise hackles
again over U.S. claims that Iran is developing Weapons of
Mass Destruction. It is all too similar to the
Pre-Iraq-War-Rhetoric for much of Europe to stomach.
Europe's leaders are desperately trying to ensure there is
no repeat of the debacle over the war in Iraq.

The United
States of America however, is quietly raging over an
self-awareness within Europe of having become a global power
and its potential of directing the show as opposed to being
subservient to U.S. interests.

The USA would term
Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as an enemy of
U.S. national security interests. Fischer is earmarked to be
the united European Union’s foreign affairs
head.

The United States certainly has
allies within the EU. The U.S. eyes Italy and the United
Kingdom foremost among its European friends. It forges
diplomatic ties, especially on foreign affairs and trade, to
assist each respective nation’s interests. The U.S. also
levers persuasion via Britain and Italy within the backrooms
of the old establishment of which Europe is renowned.

It
has used these ties when attempting to dampen strains over
Iraq, and can be expected to play the friendly nation card
in future when the need to stymie specific institutions
within the EU arises.

In particular, the U.S. appears
firmly resistant to the EU becoming a federalist union or to
put it crudely, a United States of Europe. A federal
conglomerate of persuasive nations on the global landscape,
with all outward perceptions as being one super nation, is
contrary to the USA’s global aspirations.

The United
Kingdom for example is refusing to embrace the Euro [its
Prime Minister Tony Blair, known to be in favour of Britain
taking on the single currency, has been out politicised
domestically]. Britain resists compromising its right to
pursue independent foreign affairs and taxation policy and
wishes for nations to be more autonomous and independent
within a new expansive EU structure.

The USA’s and the
UK’s main opponents, France and Germany, favour of a true
Federal structure – a position that is fast winning favour
with those smaller states such as Spain, Czech Republic,
Romania and the Balkan states. Spain had concerned centering
on how smaller contributing economies with smaller
populations would observe influence within an European
federation. Would these economies be overshadowed by the
powerful north-western troika? The EU policy boffins are
currently working on degrees of college vote and block power
allocations that minimise negatives from both extreme
points.

But European unity is the momentum, the
pace of this movement is staggering.

Ironically, while
differing positions over the USA-UK’s invasion and
occupation of Iraq drove a wedge between those southern
European economies and their northern counterparts, that
wedge has in the past few months brought about focus and
haste to advance a Europe with one common purpose. It is
almost like those nations looked into the abyss of trans
Atlantic crisis and have turned to their European market
partners for solace.

Diplomatically, diversions, and
indeed divisions, exploited by the United States over
aggressive foreign and global security propositions, are
being settled among the emerging EU nations and common
ground is being forged.

Suspicion of
American motives behind Roadmap peace talks is rife,
especially while Israel continues to kill Palestinian
civilians and innocents with American supplied
arms.

-------

KEY FACTS: The European Union formed from six founding
member states in 1950. By 1995 its member states had grown
to 15. Now, it is poised to nearly double its membership by
2007. There are challenges in bringing in this new wave of
members - the countries of central and eastern Europe,
Cyprus, Malta and Turkey and new Balkan states of the former
Yugoslavia.

But the pace of expansion is swift. And
Europeans are embracing a new found identity playing a
crucial and almost bilateral role in world affairs with and
against the United States of America.

The European Union
is now preparing for its biggest enlargement ever in terms
of scope and diversity. 13 countries have applied to become
new members: 10 of these countries - Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta,
Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia are set to join on
1st May 2004. They are currently know by the term "acceding
countries". Bulgaria and Romania hope to do so by 2007,
while Turkey is not currently negotiating its
membership.

In order to join the Union, they need to
fulfil the economic and political conditions known as the
'Copenhagen criteria', according to which a prospective
member must:

be a stable democracy, respecting
human rights, the rule of law, and the protection of
minorities;

have a functioning market
economy;

adopt the common rules,
standards and policies that make up the body of EU law.

The EU assists these countries in taking on EU
laws, and provides a range of financial assistance to
improve their infrastructure and economy. Information
courtesy of the European Union.

-------

The U.S.’s
‘Conquer influence by commanding division’ tactic is
being met by stone cold European-styled
silence.

This back-drop, of a burgeoning
European Superpower, is constricting the United States into
being less relevant, less intertwined in European affairs,
and indeed as recent weeks have displayed, alien to the
European way.

It is all cause and effect, with the United
States characteristically battling friend and foe to deliver
its own domestic self-interest via unilateralism on the
international stage. We have seen this tactic with Kyoto
agreement non-compliance, we have seen it over Iraq,
Afghanistan, on liberalised Free Trade Agreements with
compliant nations, trade blocks with nations that do not
embrace the George W Bush style of global peace. We have
seen it in areas of global intelligence, we have witnessed
the freeze creeping around a polarised world: where from the
USA’s point of view there are nations “that are with us” and
nations “that are with the terrorists”.

We have seen
European countries like Germany and France eyeball the
United States at the United Nations. We have been witness to
threats of inciting insecurities within the borders of
“unfriendly” nations.

EU forces are providing
security and aid to trouble spots, like this German
contingent in Afghanistan.

Compare
European peacekeepers to the USA’s military heads. EU
generals are embraced by nations in need, American generals
are charged with war crimes. This drives deep-seated
resentment from the USA.

For example, Belgium has been
forced to defend its right to bring war crimes charges
against U.S. Gen Tommy Franks, Colin Powell, George H Bush,
Norman Schwartzkoff.

This Belgium law drew into the
spotlight just how fragile NATO has become.

During the
US-UK invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld threatened that NATO was
almost past its use by date. Rumsfeld’s outbursts on
Thursday June 12 exposed how deep trans-Atlantic rifts over
military alliances between Europe and the U.S. had
become.

The issue displayed due to Belgium's Universal
Competence Law. Under this law, U.S. Central Command chief
Army Gen. Tommy Franks has been charged with war crimes for
his actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Former President
George H.W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of
State Colin Powell and retired Army Gen. Norman
Schwartzkopf, former CENTCOM commander, have also been
charged for their roles in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

June 12 03 - U.S.
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld drives home his
position at NATO: “The United States rejects the presumed
authority of Belgium courts to try General Franks, Colonel
McCoy, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Powell and General
Schwarzkoff, as well as former President Bush.”

Rumsfeld used the NATO summit
platform to deliver a stern and uncompromising threat to
foreign ministers.

Rumsfeld threatened that the USA no
longer is willing to send uniformed and civilian officials
to NATO HQ in Belgium while war crime charges continue to be
laid. He further threatened that the USA will withhold its
contribution toward a new HQ unless Belgium removes the law
from its legislative books.

“Belgium needs to recognize
that there are consequences to its actions and this law
calls into serious question whether NATO can continue to
hold meetings in Belgium and whether senior U.S. officials,
military and civilian, will be able to continue to visit
international organizations in Belgium. I would submit that
could be the case for other NATO Allies as well,” Rumsfeld
said.

“If the civilian and military leaders of member
states cannot come to Belgium without fear of harassment by
Belgium courts entertaining spurious charges by politicized
prosecutors, then it calls into question Belgium's attitude
about its responsibilities as a host nation for NATO and
Allied Forces.

“Certainly until this matter is resolved
we will have to oppose any further spending for construction
for a new NATO headquarters here in Brussels, until we know
with certainty that Belgium intends to be a hospitable place
for NATO to conduct its business, as it has been over so
many years,” Rumsfeld said.

The threats drove home the
terms: Rumsfeld demanded Belgium abandon the laws and
insisted that should Belgium fail to determine those laws
obsolete then the U.S. would refuse to contribute to a new
NATO HQ on Belgium
soil.

-------

The United
States/International Criminal Court
Stoush

The EU/U.S. rift is most obvious in
areas of international law. The United States refuses to be
held subservient to legal egalitarian charters that level
recourse and consider citizens of the mightiest of nations
equal in legal status to those of the tiniest of
nations.

And consequently, diplomatic pressure has been
mounting over the International Criminal Court in recent
weeks, with the United States threatening the European Union
that its promotion of the ICC will place “more strains” on
trans-Atlantic relations.

Associated Press obtained
confidential notes passed from U.S. diplomats to EU
governments that warned further support from the EU for the
ICC would create “discord and disharmony” at the June 25
summit between the United States and the European Union.

The Boston Globe reported the Bush Admin’s accusations:
“In the memorandum, the Bush administration accused the
Europeans of trying to subvert US efforts to protect
Americans from prosecution by the court and said that such
interference must stop.”

The Globe quoted directly from
the notes: “’This will undercut all our efforts to repair
and rebuild the trans-Atlantic relationship, just as we are
taking a turn for the better after a number of difficult
months,’ said the note, which was obtained by the Associated
Press.”

The United States’ insular obsession, particularly
on matters of international law, was mapped out in bold
terms in the National Security Strategy, released in 2002.
Within that document the U.S. stated: “We will take the
actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our
global security commitments and protect Americans are not
impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or
prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose
jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do
not accept.” On this issue alone, tension is now almost as
high as it was when the North European troika threatened to
veto U.S. war plans against Iraq. (see… Euro-Troika
Threaten To Veto US War Plans) And in the
heat-stakes it is relative to when Donald Rumsfeld said:
“Now, you're thinking of Europe as Germany and France. I
don't. I think that's old Europe. If you look at the entire
NATO Europe today, the center of gravity is shifting to the
east.” (see, DoD
News Briefing Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Wednesday, January 22, 2003 )

Northern
Europe and the United States are most polarised on issues of
International Criminal Law.

Europe is the backdrop
for the new International Criminal Court (ICC), first
embraced by the USA’s Clinton Administration, but later
rejected by the George W. Bush Administration as being
contrary to the United States’ interest.

Indeed, U.S.
diplomats have actively sought to destroy the ICC’s ability
to function by first soliciting exemption certificates from
signed up nations that prevent those nations from charging
or arresting U.S. citizens accused of crimes against
humanity and other war crimes.

In recent weeks Europe has
been forced to consolidate as the United States weighed an
anti-ICC campaign through those smaller European economies
[considered coalition of the willing nations by the U.S.]
urging them to ratify each signed exemption certificate.

This has all come about due to Washington insisting the ICC
will be used to bring politically motivated prosecutions
against Americans, and points to Belgian law as an example
of what could capture the International Criminal
Court.

The U.S. has openly undermining the establishment
and effectiveness of the International Criminal Court,
firstly by pressurising mostly former Warsaw Pact states to
sign exemption certificates that expressly prevent United
States citizens and military personnel from being tried for
international crimes.

Romania, Albania, Bosnia, the Czech
Republic and 36 other nations worldwide have signed
bilateral exemptions with the United States. The U.S. argues
bilaterals are legally permissible. It plans to enforce
accords designed to prevent countries from taking U.S.
citizens into custody and transporting them to the ICC for
trial.

There are complexities: while the executives of
south east states like Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia
signed bilateral exemption certificates, the state
parliaments had not ratified them.

Russian Federation
President Putin and Germany’s Chancellor Schroeder have
brokered a symbiotic EU-Russian relationship that rocked
United States diplomats during the build up to the US-UK
invasion of Iraq. Russia is building closer ties with the
expanding EU. The politically astute Putin almost willingly
toys with U.S. President George W. Bush in a staccato-styled
exchange of hot and cold diplo-speak.

In short, this month, the European Union struck back.
Retaliation from the United States was yet to come.

Early
in June the EU strategically moved to draw rogue continental
states into line. The time was right, the Czech Republic was
going to the polls, Czechs returned a decisive 77.8%
yes-vote to joining the EU. Anticipating this, the EU had
moved to persuade politicians to abandon bilateral exemption
certificates, that would in effect block ratification and
eyeball the U.S. on ethical and legal-egalitarian
grounds.

The European Union wrote to the governments of
the ten nations scheduled for EU assertion, and select
Balkan states seeking entry to the EU, urging them not to
sign, nor ratify, exemption certificates with the United
States beyond guidelines already laid down by the EU.

The
EU guidelines permit member countries to exempt US military
and government personnel from ICC trials if
Washington guarantees that individuals charged would be
investigated and bought to trial in the United
States.

U.S. retaliation spilled over at the United
Nations late last week. Tensions between the United
States and Northern European foes, France and Germany became
more taut at the United Nations when the U.S. pressured a
resolution before the Security Council that rolled over a
further 12 month exemption from ICC prosecution for U.S.
citizens taking part in peace keeping operations.

Under
this resolution the International Criminal Court treaty is
binding on all nations. But the United States insists its
nationals should be exempt because Washington has not
ratified it. Russia and China have also yet to ratify the
ICC, so if one accepts the USA’s stance, these two nations
are also exempt. Hence the motivation that saw both Russia
and China support the resolution. France and Germany however
walked out forcing an abstained vote, but with France, as a
permanent member of the security council, falling short of
using its veto. Consequently the resolution passed which in
turn drew anger from UN general secretary Kofi Annan.

The stoush drew reaction stateside.

Again on June 13
03 the Boston Globe reported tensions between the U.S. and
Europe again had frayed: “Washington's dealings with Paris
and Berlin had seemed to be on the mend after the fractious
debate over the Iraq war plunged relations to their lowest
level in decades. President Bush sought to smooth over the
rifts during a recent visit to Europe. But at the Security
Council yesterday, France and Germany joined UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan in decrying US immunity as contrary to
the international treaty that set up the court. The
resolution authorizes a yearlong exemption from arrest or
trial for US peacekeepers before the International Criminal
Court.” For more see…
boston.com/dailyglobe

Annan criticised the
U.S. move stating hope that the USA would not repeat the
exemption-tactic annually: “If it (the USA) did so,
I fear the world would interpret it as meaning that this
Council wished to claim absolute and permanent immunity for
people serving in the operations it establishes or
authorizes,” the Secretary-General said. “And if that were
to happen, it would undermine not only the authority of the
ICC but also the authority of this Council, and the
legitimacy of United Nations peacekeeping.” For
more see…
Annan concerned on peacekeepers'immunity from ICC - Friday,
13 June 2003, 11:39 am

-------

EPILOGUE:

Delightfully
buoyed, United States President George W. Bush greets
cheering U.S. troops in Oman.

On June
25 United States President George W. Bush will host a
European Union/United States Summit in Washington. There
will be smiles for the camera, handshakes for public
measure. But between the players from both sides of the
Atlantic will be the stare of cold-tempered-steel.

The
United States reaction is predictable. European diplomatic
sophistication commands complex interpretation. But by
degrees we are witnessing the rising of a global superpower
that will command due respect from the brash and
self-convinced American who thinks Imperial PAX Americana is
here to stay.

EveningReport is designed with realtime interactivity in mind. Along with published articles, columns, and analysis it will webcast video debate and interviews on-site in realtime and on-demand. Public and audience interaction is also key to EveningReport's brand.

The ScoopPro licensing terms require that commercial users of Scoop.co.nz pay a reasonable fee in order to access the Scoop site so that this same information remains free and accessible to the wider public regardless of their disposable income. More>>

ALSO:

A combination of new technology, ideas, institutions and business models and a renewed energy and commitment by the Scoop team, means Scoop aims to be at the forefront of the development of this renaissance that we term ‘News 3.0’. More>>

ALSO:

Scoop Co-Founder Alastair Thompson - One of the saddest aspects of the decline of the news industry, not just here in NZ - but everywhere, is that it often seems invisible, in large part because news is a confidence business... More>>

ALSO:

Brexit has left the British public looking like a nation of Wellington bus commuters. In both cases, the unholy mess bears no resemblance to what people were promised or the spin being used to justify it. More>>

On the big picture, the poll predictions were dead right. In the end, the Democratic Party won a clear victory in the House, and lost as expected in the Senate, where it had been defending at least 10 seats in regions that had voted heavily for Trump in 2016. More>>